Dating the gospel of matthew
The canonical Gospel of Matthew is generally thought to have been originally written in Greek in the first century. contains Ha-Shem 19 times in the abbreviated form ה״ where the Gospel of Matthew has either κύριος or θεός (,24; ,19; 3:3; 4:4,7,10; ; 15:8; 21:9,12,42; ,32,37,44; 27:9; 28:2) and once (28:9) in full (השם) where the Gospel of Matthew has no corresponding term (28:9), employing it not only in Matthew's Old Testament quotations, but also in his narrative, either when introducing such quotations (, ) or when speaking of the "angel of the Lord" (, , , 28:2) or the "house of the Lord", i.e., the Temple ().
As Howard, referring to Ha-Shem as "the Divine Name", wrote: Shem Tob's version has Ha-Shem even in (not an exact Old Testament quotation), where the corresponding Old Testament phrase has Elohim, not YHWH; and it does not have it everywhere Matthew has Θεός, as in , where Matthew has that word several times.
There are many similarities between the gospel accounts: a. Similarities in two gospels only: 1) Some accounts in all three Gospels are more similar in two gospel accounts than with a third account 2) Matthew and Luke contain a considerable amount of material common to both but omitted from Mark (especially in the teaching of Jesus) [e.g., Matt. Many points of detail have differences of arrangement and vocabulary between the gospel accounts 1) Little verbal similarity 2) Different historical settings b. It is mentioned in a matter of fact manner in 8:5; b.
Similarity of arrangement: baptism, temptation, public ministry in Galilee, Peter’s confession as turning point, last journey to Jerusalem, trial, crucifixion, resurrection b. Each of the three gospel accounts has certain sections peculiar to it--especially in Matthew and Luke (e.g., the birth narratives) C. One solution is the two source theory: the similarities lie in the theory that Mark was the first Gospel which Luke and Matthew used as a source, and that there was also a common source called “Q” which accounts for non-Marcan similarities between Matthew and Luke (documentary hypothesis/Mark-Q) a. It is given an extended description and identified with the fulfillment of prophecy in Matthew ff c.
Others understand “Q” to be a stream of tradition including both written and oral accounts to which Matthew and Luke had access (Bock) e. Even though the parallels of “Mark” in Matthew and Luke are striking, it is entirely possible that they are using a similar source which Mark used (Ur-Mark/pre-Marcan) C.
There is considerable disagreement concerning the actual contents of “Q” (see article by Stewart Petrie, “‘Q’ Is Only What You Make It” 2. Matthew was an Apostle, so one wonders why in his composition of a gospel account he would depend so heavily upon another’s eyewitness account (e.g., the banquet held in his own house (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark -17) D.
This supplies two more sources to the two source theory: “M” and “L” a. The usual discussion of date revolves around the synoptic problem, and especially Marcan priority (see above) B. As Matthew presents the state of Jerusalem in his gospel, the city of Jerusalem is still standing: 1.“Q” is an abbreviation for the German term for “source” () c. It is possible that Matthew did not attach his name to the Gospel because he was a humble man a. He does not record the stories which might exalt himself as Luke does (that of the Pharisee and the publican [Luke 18:9-14], or that of Zacchaeus [Luke 19:1-10]) A.“Q” is most often understood to be the non-Marcan material which is common in Matthew and Luke d. He continually calls himself a tax collector unlike Mark and Luke (Matthew 9:9; 10:3; cf. Mark was considered to be an abstract of Matthew from Augustine until the early part of the nineteenth century B.Again Marcan priority is central to this solution, because Mark is use by Matthew and Luke. Another central question in the dating of the Gospel is whether or not Jesus had predictive power C. 70, therefore, Matthew must follow later (around A. He calls it the “holy city” as though it was still in existence (4:5; ) 2.If Mark was not first, then another solution must be sought b. When it is assumed that Jesus did not have predictive power, and that Matthew depends upon Mark, then it is argued that Mark could only have predicted the fall of Jerusalem (Mk. He does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem as having been accomplished (ff; 27:8; ). He desires to show that the major events in the life of Jesus took place in fulfillment of prophecy--He is Messiah B.
It also argues against attributing to Jesus the role of Messiah.